Politics Rittenhouse Verdict

Justmeandcb

Member
FreightCoin
6
The problem with quoting laws is much like the bible, you can't simply select a few verses to fit your narrative. You have to quote "everything" that applies.

Case in point, I will quote the most important point here, which you left out. Not sure if you looked this up yourself, or got it from someone else, but somebody failed to cover everything, which results in very misleading information.

Regarding 948.60, and the very specific case in which it does "not" apply.




Upon reading that, you will reference this, and would need to go read it:




I bolded the two important parts. The rifle that Kyle Rittenhouse carried was not a short-barreled rifle. Kyle Rittenhouse, under questioning from the prosecution, said he would have carried a handgun, which would have made it easier for him to do what he came there for, had it been legal to carry a handgun. The only two firearms that he could legally carry was a long-barreled rifle or a long-barreled shotgun.

Neither of the other two stipulations, 29.304, or 29.593, apply to Kyle Rittenhouse or this situation in any way. One is for minors under 16, the other is in regards to using the weapon for hunting and having the proper licenses/permits for such.

So, this has absolutely nothing to do with the judge's interpretation. It has everything to do with reading the entire law, which this poor excuse for a prosecutor failed to do.
The problem with quoting laws is much like the bible, you can't simply select a few verses to fit your narrative. You have to quote "everything" that applies.

Case in point, I will quote the most important point here, which you left out. Not sure if you looked this up yourself, or got it from someone else, but somebody failed to cover everything, which results in very misleading information.

Regarding 948.60, and the very specific case in which it does "not" apply.




Upon reading that, you will reference this, and would need to go read it:




I bolded the two important parts. The rifle that Kyle Rittenhouse carried was not a short-barreled rifle. Kyle Rittenhouse, under questioning from the prosecution, said he would have carried a handgun, which would have made it easier for him to do what he came there for, had it been legal to carry a handgun. The only two firearms that he could legally carry was a long-barreled rifle or a long-barreled shotgun.

Neither of the other two stipulations, 29.304, or 29.593, apply to Kyle Rittenhouse or this situation in any way. One is for minors under 16, the other is in regards to using the weapon for hunting and having the proper licenses/permits for such.

So, this has absolutely nothing to do with the judge's interpretation. It has everything to do with reading the entire law, which this poor excuse for a prosecutor failed to do.
Thank you for clearly proving my point. Is what people are failing to realize is that the small little sentence that contains the words applies if not in compliance. I suggest you go look up what that compliance refers to, Because Kyle never took no safety hunting course therefore the section would and does apply to him, The law says anyone born after January 1 1973 must take the safety course to be in compliance. Again like I said if we go off facts and take our personal opinions out the law is the law, I am expected to follow it just as you and anyone else in the GREAT USA is expected to. When we allow it to be broken for one we better get ready for the lesson our younger generations to start following suit. This is not about race this is not about age or felons or non felons this about the law. If it was about race Kyle Rittenhouse is considered Hispanic. His BC says Hispanic because his father is Hispanic. So race has no bearing in this. This is not about felons because the survivor was not a felon , Just like DOJ announced Rausenburg was not a sex offender like everyone tried to say he was a sex offendor child molestor that is BS as well go to Arizona court look it up first it did not happen second they claim it happened in 2002, There is only one criminal case with the same name in the history of Arizona criminal courts the case number is
S-1000-CR-20143306 and clearly if that was him he would be on Arizona sex offend registry as AZ is one of the few states that do not remove you after death and yet he isn't there. Go figure someone made the poster and people jumped on the bandwagon
 
Last edited:

Mike

Well-Known Member
FreightCoin
543
Thank you for clearly proving my point. Is what people are failing to realize is that the small little sentence that contains the words applies if not in compliance. I suggest you go look up what that compliance refers to, Because Kyle never took no safety hunting course therefore the section would and does apply to him, The law says anyone born after January 1 1973 must take the safety course to be in compliance. Again like I said if we go off facts and take our personal opinons out the law is the law, I am expected to follow it just as you and anyone else in the GREAT USA is expected to. When we allow it to be broken for one we better get ready for the lesson our younger generations to start following suit

Hunting doesn't apply to this situation in any way.
 

Mike

Well-Known Member
FreightCoin
543
Actually the fact that Kyle's rifle could be used for hunting because the barrel was 16 inches is what got the weapons charge tossed.

anybody who mentioned hunting in the argument only confused people, because the law has nothing to do with hunting.

This is about a minor possessing a "dangerous weapon", which is illegal because, under 948.60, this only applies to a minor if the rifle is considered a short-barreled rifle, as stated in 941.28.

The mention of hunting just confuses things for people because while the rule may have been put in there for the intention of allowing underage kids to hunt, no hunting provision was included in the rule, except for the case where a minor is actually hunting, which he was not.

the new member is bringing up requirements for hunter safety certifications for kids under 16, or for any minor born after a certain date. In order to use a long-barreled rifle or shotgun for hunting, they must have this certificate, otherwise, they are hunting illegally. which is why I stated that hunting does not apply to this scenario at all.

Unless you want to say he was hunting, in which case this once again becomes murder, LOL.
 

gearjammer

jammer
FreightCoin
37
Grosskreutz was a felon
actually he was a felon that had his conviction expunged

in fact had a concealed weapons permit. Yes it was expired.
court records show that he in fact carried concealed, why didn't the DA charge him since his permit was expired

The defense showed a photo of Grosskreutz reaching into the back of his waistband, where he initially had his gun.
 

gearjammer

jammer
FreightCoin
37
Just like DOJ announced Rausenburg was not a sex offender like everyone tried to say he was a sex offendor child molestor that is BS as well go to Arizona court look it up first
I did look it up
rose3-1.png
 

Duck

Sarcastic remark goes here
FreightCoin
193
but hell I guess that is most likely due to being to busy busting my ass overseas fighting to keep people like you in a position to have freedom of speech.
I've been wondering for years..... How exactly does one fight for freedom when the biggest threat to freedom is the government you work for? Do you have a rifle that can hit targets in DC and Silicon Valley from the middle east?
 

Electric Chicken

Well-Known Member
Premium
FreightCoin
320
Thank you for clearly proving my point. Is what people are failing to realize is that the small little sentence that contains the words applies if not in compliance. I suggest you go look up what that compliance refers to, Because Kyle never took no safety hunting course therefore the section would and does apply to him, The law says anyone born after January 1 1973 must take the safety course to be in compliance. Again like I said if we go off facts and take our personal opinions out the law is the law, I am expected to follow it just as you and anyone else in the GREAT USA is expected to. When we allow it to be broken for one we better get ready for the lesson our younger generations to start following suit. This is not about race this is not about age or felons or non felons this about the law. If it was about race Kyle Rittenhouse is considered Hispanic. His BC says Hispanic because his father is Hispanic. So race has no bearing in this. This is not about felons because the survivor was not a felon , Just like DOJ announced Rausenburg was not a sex offender like everyone tried to say he was a sex offendor child molestor that is BS as well go to Arizona court look it up first it did not happen second they claim it happened in 2002, There is only one criminal case with the same name in the history of Arizona criminal courts the case number is
S-1000-CR-20143306 and clearly if that was him he would be on Arizona sex offend registry as AZ is one of the few states that do not remove you after death and yet he isn't there. Go figure someone made the poster and people jumped on the bandwagon
You're not going to find him if you keep spelling it wrong. It's Rosenbaum not Rausenburg.
 

Zany_Steverino

Well-Known Member
FreightCoin
9
Ok. A BLM group surrounded a private business in the hometown I grew up in a little over a year ago. I went to that location, heavily armed. I did NOT stand out or make that fact obvious. I simply went and took as many photos as I could of all the individuals that were present. I took a video of 3 young men that tried to instigate the crowd and incite a riot.

That business was vandalized a few months ago. I took all of the photos and videos to the business owner and gave them to him.

Here is what I am pointing out. There are "Kyle Rittenhouse" all over the country. We are all heavily armed. We will defend our communities.

And...you won't see us coming but you will definitely know we were there.
 

Mike

Well-Known Member
FreightCoin
543
I did look it up
rose3-1.png

And DOJ didn't announce anything. This was a state level case.

the Judge overseeing the case didn't allow it to be talked about in the case, and for good reason. It had nothing to do with the case. Bringing up this POS liking to stick his weiner in little boy's butts would have swayed the jury, so that was the right call. the Judge never said that he wasn't a pedophile. For God's sakes, the man was on a predator list, and was always going to be on a predator list.

Now, he no longer has to be on that list. That's a good thing. His life did not matter, as does none of the people who commit digusting acts like he did. They should all have received death as a punishment immediately after conviction, or at the very least, never allowed to walk outside the confines of a prison cell again.
 

Justmeandcb

Member
FreightCoin
6
actually he was a felon that had his conviction expunged


court records show that he in fact carried concealed, why didn't the DA charge him since his permit was expired

The defense showed a photo of Grosskreutz reaching into the back of his waistband, where he initially had his gun.
I beg to differ, He is not a felon he never had a record expunged, proof is in the fake template of charges supposedly issued by the DOJ. Anyone seeing this should see it is fake, The charge they claim is expunged had a disposition date of august, He has the exact same charge in three other courts that all have different case numbers and yet only that one says expunged. Last but not least an expunged record in no state automatically restores gun rights,

He would have to had petitioned the court to restore rights and if you search court records that never happened. Furthermore I assure you and welcome you to check the FCRA laws. If he had in fact had a felony and had it expunged it would NOT show on his criminal record, Just like if you go to Pacer and look up any case that has a sealed indictment you can not see what the charges ever were. If that is not enough proof this should be. The state of Wisconsin has one of the most strict laws for expungement in the mid west,

To even apply for expungement you must be 25 or younger (he was 26) You must also request it the day you are sentenced for that crime, There is no way to petition the court later after the fact. Now In June 2021 new Wisconsin Assembly passed votes to relax this law and it was headed to the Senate, It has not been approved yet and if it have been it would not allow him to get his conviction expunged because one of the charges that does not qualify is illegal entry to any building or dwelling and that is the charge he had that supposedly was expunged.
 

gearjammer

jammer
FreightCoin
37
And DOJ didn't announce anything. This was a state level case.

the Judge overseeing the case didn't allow it to be talked about in the case, and for good reason. It had nothing to do with the case. Bringing up this POS liking to stick his weiner in little boy's butts would have swayed the jury, so that was the right call. the Judge never said that he wasn't a pedophile. For God's sakes, the man was on a predator list, and was always going to be on a predator list.

Now, he no longer has to be on that list. That's a good thing. His life did not matter, as does none of the people who commit digusting acts like he did. They should all have received death as a punishment immediately after conviction, or at the very least, never allowed to walk outside the confines of a prison cell again.
not disagreeing, just correcting a misinformed statement
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top